The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, in the light of that reply, will the Minister say whether he is now satisfied that the age verification software to block online registration has in fact been sufficiently installed by the gambling industry?

Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that the whole focus of the education White Paper is upon parent power and parent responsibility? That is good as far as it goes, but what about all those thousands of children who do not have parents prepared to engage? What about the children in care—or looked-after children, as they are now called? The Minister knows that they receive scant attention in the White Paper, so can he assure the House that during the course of any consultations on this issue in 2006 the Government will seriously consider practical measures that can genuinely improve their life chances?

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the code of practice currently requires schools to have regard to the need to give first priority to looked-after children. We will be laying regulations before the House next month that will place on all schools, including foundation schools, voluntary-aided schools and community schools, a requirement that they give first priority in their admissions to looked-after children. I believe that we already have very robust protections in place for looked-after children and that we will have fail-safe protections in place after the regulations have been laid.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that most of the publicity about speed cameras comes from the motoring lobby and motoring press and that the cameras provide a protection for many people? I wonder whether, in order to get a balanced picture, the Government should not instigate some consultation with local people, to see what they think about cameras?

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are many people living in villages and other vulnerable areas who despair because, due to the somewhat callous and mechanistic nature of the present formula for installing speed cameras, the chances of getting any in their particular area are pretty well nil. Would he therefore undertake with his colleagues to re-examine this formula and perhaps in doing so take on board the useful suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about local intervention and input?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I have indicated there are strict limitations on the revenue raising processes from cameras and the way in which the resources can be used. My noble friend will recognise that, important as it is to increase expenditure on road safety, it is also most important that we condition driving behaviour. That is the crucial single factor with regard to accidents—it is well-attested through all research—and therefore we need to take the confidence of the motoring public with us, that the cameras are fulfilling a proper purpose and are in the right places.

Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I accept all that the Minister says about the importance of controlling speed and traffic control, but will he help me with a temptation that I face on the A12? In 2.5 miles of serious road repairs outside our house, we have no less than 14 cameras, two of which are situated just at the point of deregulation. Would he help me with the temptation that I might believe that this is as much about revenue raising as it is about speed control?

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have read very carefully our debates in Committee and with the passage of time I find them no more reassuring than I did at the time. Indeed, I find the situation even more disturbing. We still have no clear justification for this sweeping power to recall all existing driving licences, no justification for charging motorists for this bureaucracy, no costing of the process, no statement of what the charge to motorists will be and no denial of the obvious potential link to the identity card project.
	There is a growing suspicion that the Government are being less than candid with the public about their ID card plans. I absolve the Minister from this; he has always been very helpful to the House; but he needs to say today whether the Government will rule out ever designating driving licences as documents with which people will be made to register with the ID cards scheme when they seek a new one. If he cannot give that categoric assurance, there must be one obvious conclusion—the Government are designing this gigantic bureaucratic engine to recall and reissue all driving licences at least partly in order to force people into the ID cards scheme. It is hard to see what other purpose there could be. After all, in Committee the Minister gave three rather flimsy explanations as to why this sweeping new power was required. On 17 October (at col. 665 of the Official Report) he said that it was nothing to do with Europe. It is odd, though, that the existing photo licences are in a common form and bear the EU flag, but, of course, I accept unreservedly what he said. These clauses are nothing to do with Europe. Therefore, it must be a purely internal policy consideration that is driving a potentially massive bureaucratic exercise to recall all existing driving licences.
	The Minister said (at cols. 665-6 of the Official Report) that the matter was to do with security, nothing more, nothing less. He said that almost every day there was a case of fraudulent abuse of identity involving paper licences. One case a day does not seem to me to be massive in the context of tens of millions of licences in issue, but I grant that the matter needs addressing. However, does it require this massive sledgehammer built at undisclosed cost to the taxpayer and cost and inconvenience to the public to deal with it?
	The Minister said (at col. 668 of the Official Report) that we need to improve the quality of the paper licence. Frankly, that could be done in time and is being done without these powers. The Minister said that there were already 20 million photograph licences in circulation, with 2 million being added each year.
	That would mean 22 million possible recalls of photo licences under this clause if it were decided to recall them all or limit their term of validity for less than the existing 10 years. Is there any assurance that the Government will not do that? We would like some explanations on these points as there were none in Committee.
	The Minister said that he could not be drawn on the cost of the process, nor could he say what charges would be imposed on motorists who have perfectly legal documents withdrawn so that they have to get new ones. He said nothing about the concern that I have raised about ID cards. When I asked about a link to ID cards, the Minister said:
	"I would be straying somewhat far afield from my brief if I discussed the issue of identity cards, which the Committee will recognise are the subject of intensive consultation at the present time".—[Official Report, 17/10/05; col. 667.]
	That is hardly illuminating. It is widely acknowledged by those involved that part of the Government plan to force people to volunteer for ID cards and be registered on the national ID register is to designate driving licences under Clause 4 of the Identity Cards Bill and force people to be registered when they apply for a driving licence. Indeed, you would not be allowed to drive unless you agreed to be registered in the Prime Minister's ID register. By a pincer movement of designating both passports and driving licences it is hoped that in the shortest time 80 per cent of the population will be forced to volunteer to be registered. Perhaps the Minister did not know that; if not I hope that it is helpful to the House for me to have informed him. If he did know that, I hope that he will be a little more forthcoming on this occasion about the intention of the Government if it is so, and if it is not so that he will be forthcoming in a firm undertaking to Parliament that driving licences will never be a designated document under the Identity Cards Act.
	Even if the ID card issue were not involved I would be cautious about the need for the powers being taken here. The justifications given are slight, the cost and inconvenience are potentially enormous and the bureaucracy is unnecessary and avoidable. A potential link to the ID card scheme would be better made in the Identity Cards Bill, rather than taking powers in this legislation to facilitate it. I see no proportionate case for these powers, and I believe that they should be omitted from the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, although the arguments have not advanced a great deal since Committee. Let me deal with the suspicion that has been articulated that this is all about the identity cards legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, thought that it would be better if the driving licence issue was brought within that legislation.
	In the Identity Cards Bill there is provision for any official document to be designated. That would mean that in order to obtain the designated document—for example a passport or driving licence—an applicant would have to possess an identity card. But there are no plans at present so to designate the driving licence. I sought to make that clear in Committee. Any order to designate the driving licence would be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny under the terms of the Bill, and that scrutiny would be through affirmative resolution procedure. So we are making it as obvious as we can that if in due course that was thought to be desirable, Parliament would have to consider it as a separate issue through the affirmative procedure.
	But we are not anticipating that that will happen and we are not making provision for it to happen. If the driving licence remains a non-designated document, an applicant may be offered the option of proving his identity by evidence of an entry on the national identity register. That would be voluntary, as against the current procedure in which applicants have to submit physical evidence of identity, such as a passport, to the DVLA. Officials are liaising with the Home Office to examine how that would work. Therefore, if, as I think it is, the main burden of the noble Lord's amendment is that this is all a precursor to the Identity Cards Bill, I am merely indicating that our thinking is very different from that.
	Why are we concerned about the driving licence? First, when I say, as I did in Committee, that it has nothing to do with Europe, I meant to imply—I hope to clarify this matter now—that it is not imposed on us by any European legislation or directive. It has something to do with Europe in that some fraud is perpetrated in European countries by people using British driving licences, which in their present form are rather inadequate as identification, in other European countries. Those people obtain the opportunity to drive and then succeed in getting into Britain as drivers without ever having passed the test.
	How many cases are involved? The noble Lord says that there are not many, and he is right—the number is not huge. I believe we identified 60 cases last year. But, as the noble Lord freely stated, it is fraud. That is something that should be dealt with and we are seeking to do so. There are many other illustrations of occasions when these cards are used—not abroad but in the United Kingdom—in counterfeit ways. The police bring to the attention of the DVLA some 300 counterfeit licences a year. The DVLA provides the police with witness statements confirming that a licence is counterfeit.
	Perhaps I may make the obvious point. First, the right to drive is a privilege, not an automatic right; it is a privilege won through competence so that one is safe on the road. Secondly, the whole House will recognise that there is often a strong correlation between the right to drive—particularly the opportunity taken to drive at excessive speeds—and criminal activity. I recognise that there are many features which increase crime in our society and therefore I will not make this point too strongly, but if there is one feature which contributes to criminality, it is the use of the motor car for access to the place where the crime is going to be perpetrated and for the getaway. We all know that, and that is why we are concerned about the right to drive and whether people are fraudulently able to avail themselves of these rights.
	I remind noble Lords that this is a Road Safety Bill. I cannot think of anything that countermands the concept of road safety more than a person in control of a vehicle which can travel legally at speeds of 70 miles per hour and, in the hands of some people who have never qualified to drive because they have counterfeit records, a good deal faster than that.
	Last year, the police also brought to the DVLA's attention approximately 1,200 cases where the individual had set up more than one identity on the DVLA's record. Some of the more extreme cases result in several separate identities being recorded. I wonder why that should be so if it does not indicate a level of criminal activity that has been easier to pursue than it would be under our new proposals.
	The noble Lord then spoke about inordinate costs. I recognise that cost factors are involved and I believe he will forgive me—although I am not sure that he is in a forgiving mood today—if I am unable, at this stage, to cost this issue. I am not in a position to do that. I shall give way to the noble Earl.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we still have some way to go with this Bill but the principle behind it is straightforward; namely, that the DVLA is a trading fund—it is a government agency—but it is obliged to meet its costs. The nature of the driving licence has finally to be identified. We are still subject to probing and challenging amendments from the other side, as the noble Earl may have noticed, so I cannot be categoric about costs. However, I have indicated that there are costs. Photographic renewal will cost the DVLA an additional £60 million per annum and it does not have a budget from which it can produce a subsidy for that. There are costs but many renewals will be free. Following a fee restructuring in March last year, licence renewals for those aged 70 and over for large and passenger carrying vehicle licences and for licences with a restricted duration as a result of a medical condition are now issued free of charge and that will continue. Replacement licences for those categories will remain free. Nevertheless, noble Lords will recognise that we cannot expect a government agency, which is meant to operate on a not-for-profit basis, but which has to meet its costs, to write off such significant costs, so charges will be made. I accept that the noble Lord has identified a point on that.
	Taken in the round, we are seeking to guarantee the security of the British driving licence when we are all too well aware of the inadequacy of the present form. It is true that more recent forms of the driving licence have been a great improvement. A police officer has a real problem when he stops an individual who shows him a piece of paper without a photograph but which contains the general details that we all know appear on the driving licence. The police have real difficulties in establishing that the owner of the licence is the person driving the car at the time.
	As regards road safety measures, we cannot think of anything that is much more important than guaranteeing the security of driving licences. We need to combat fraud. This is an area where fraud clearly occurs, in Britain and through our licences being used elsewhere. I hope the noble Lord recognises—if I am not given fresh arguments today—that I have reinforced and clarified some of the arguments I made in Committee and that he has had a sufficient answer to enable him to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I normally thank the Minister for his answer but today, as he said himself, he has not given us any information other than that we debated in Committee. I shall repeat our concerns. The Minister said that the Government "have no plans" to designate the driving licence as part of the identity card scheme and that this matter will be put to Parliament in the form of an affirmative order. We all know that that means that, although there may be some debate, the matter will sail through. We feel that there is far too close a link between the potential identity card legislation and this suggestion from the Government.
	We want to stop fraud and make certain that driving licences are used legitimately, but to replace 22 million licences would involve enormous cost. The Minister gave us no idea the cost, but he did talk about £60 million a year for a proportion of the licences, so we are talking about a tremendous cost, either to the state or to the individual. A lot of that money would be better spent on other road safety measures. We are debating a road safety Bill and if we are talking about, possibly, hundreds of millions of pounds, I am sure that many noble Lords have better ideas for saving lives and improving safety than spending this enormous amount on licences.
	I have an old paper licence. They are being phrased out. As one gets one's new licence, one gets a new photographic licence. As the Minister said, fraud has been less prevalent with the new type of licence. So, under the current situation with no new legislation—no new clauses—people will have a better licence. I feel that these two clauses are a step too far. They give the Government too many powers and pose enormous potential cost on either the motorist or the state. I think that we should test the feeling of the House on the matter.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has indicated to the House that we are seeking to permit drivers to drive passengers in vehicles where at present they are not allowed to do so. In fact they are allowed to do so for distances of up to 21 kilometres. That is a very restrictive agreement, allowing drivers little scope to exercise the skills which the Government have legislated for in setting up learning and skills councils. So, to be consistent, it should be possible for the drivers concerned to be able to gain experience by easing the restriction on distance by raising the limit to 50 kilometres. That would be much more useful to drivers seeking to develop their skills. If the Minister will say that the distance over which young drivers can drive might be increased and that this issue will form part of the discussions that the Transport Minister is having in Europe, I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, the Minister has twice said, "For vehicles adapted to carry eight vehicles to more". He perhaps means, "Eight passengers or more".

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I apologise; I meant "eight passengers" or more. I am grateful to the noble Countess for clarifying that. I was seeking to identify that if the vehicle carries more than eight passengers, a public service vehicle licence is required. If the vehicle is to carry eight passengers or fewer, the private hire vehicle licence is the appropriate one. That is the one that applies to taxis and other private hire vehicles that can take only pre-booked hirings. Those licences are administered by the relevant local authority, which has discretion on which vehicles they will licence. It is therefore at present a matter for local decision. I think that the noble Lord is indicating that these local licensing authorities have some difficulty with regard to stretch limousines, which is why we need to address the issue.
	A vehicle can also carry these numbers of passengers if they are separate fares and are being carried,
	"in the course of a business . . . of carrying passengers".
	In that case, however, a public service vehicle operator's licence would be issued by the traffic commissioner. So we are clear on the two categories of licence that are issued.
	As noble Lords will recognise, some stretch limousines arguably are constructed to carry more than eight passengers. However, because of the nature of their current construction, they are allowed to be registered for use on UK roads only if they carry no more than eight passengers. That is the restriction. To carry more than eight, they would need to comply with Schedule 6, on minibuses, of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Vehicles of the stretched limousine type currently do not comply. In particular, they do comply with the minibus requirement because minibuses have emergency exits. One of the obvious problems that we have with stretch limousines is that they do not have any form of emergency exit.
	Schedule 6 could not be modified unilaterally so as to authorise non-conforming stretch limousines as a separate class without the absence of objections from right across the European Community. We think that that would be unlikely given the arrival shortly of a new European-type approval regime for large passenger vehicles which does not specifically provide for stretch limousines to the numbers that would be required. If constructed to meet the required standards, there is absolutely nothing to stop a limousine from operating as a public service vehicle. But it would need to meet the required standards. Some manufacturers are looking at how they can adapt their stretch limousines to meet the public service vehicle requirements, which would need to include some element of emergency exit.
	Because of the construction requirements I have just outlined, limousines on our roads today can in practice operate only as a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer. They are not constructed to carry more. As I have already explained, vehicles adapted to carry eight passengers or fewer which are used for carrying passengers for hire or reward can be licensed by either the local authority or the traffic commissioner, depending on the type of operation undertaken. The type of operation envisaged by the noble Lords in the amendment—that is, a vehicle provided with a driver and arrangements for payment of fares made before the journey—is already provided for under the private hire vehicle licensing system. Creating two types of licence for the same type of operation would be far from ideal and create significant confusion and difficulties for both the licensing and the enforcement authorities. So we do not want two types of licence. We want to get the stretch limousines within the existing framework of licensing arrangements.
	We recognise that proper enforcement is an important issue on a number of safety grounds, not just in relation to the type of vehicle but also in terms of the type of driver. After all, the driver is responsible for a significant number of people in his charge.
	I should just say that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency takes to court those operators found to be carrying nine or more passengers and thus operating illegally, and those cases are resulting in successful prosecutions. So we are concerned enough about the situation to seek to monitor the successful prosecution when these vehicles are being used illegally.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that is certainly an interesting point, although they are not the only vehicles on the road with opaque windows. There is no opacity with regard to the driver's window, for a start—so the police can make a challenge. It is also the case that if a police officer suspects that something illegal is being done, he is perfectly entitled to make the necessary checks. It would not take him long to open a door to discover how many passengers there were inside.
	So I do not believe that enforcement is a difficulty. What is at stake here—and what the noble Lord is trying to resolve with his amendment—is how the vehicles are rendered safe and proper and meet out licensing requirement, which is to guarantee safety on the road. We believe that the current legislation fully provides for any form of operation envisaged. We are aware of concerns in this area and officials are actively looking at what can be done to clarify the position for all parties. We recognise that we will need to get the licensing regime absolutely clear so that the licensing authorities know what kind of vehicles they are dealing with and deal with them properly. But we are absolutely certain that, when vehicles are operating illegally, prosecutions are occurring, because we are concerned about that.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we are not accepting the amendment; we are resisting it, and therefore it is somewhat academic to look at the word "cycle" as opposed to the word "bicycle". But I understand the point that my noble friend makes. Certainly it is important to get the definition of a motorcycle absolutely right in any amendment, together with the fact that the motorcycle is a two-wheeled power vehicle, although some can be customised to have three wheels. I thank my noble friend for that information.
	With regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in this case local authorities' experience of their local circumstances is most important. People will be expecting a bus to be in a bus lane. A local authority knows about speeds and the timing of congestion and so on in certain areas. While it is not always so, I believe that in this case local authorities should be allowed to use their discretion in coming to a decision with that local knowledge.
	I can see the noble Lord's point about there being confusion without a systematic set of standards across the country. However, if local authorities believe that their local circumstances make it appropriate for motorcycles to be in bus lanes, it will be safe for people if there is clear signage. So I think that clear signage is the answer to the noble Lord's concern.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 175; Not-Contents, 146

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 57, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which both concern Segway human transporters. Before doing so, I state that I have no interest to declare. I have decided to pursue this issue on my own volition, but I have been helped by Segway during the passage of the Bill. We gave the concept a good run in Committee, and I will not repeat the arguments in favour of the Segway on Report. Most noble Lords are now familiar with what we are talking about, and many noble Lords have tried it. The software and the electronics inside the device are very much more sophisticated than might be supposed at first sight, but only those who have ridden on the device can appreciate how clever that software is.
	I am pleased that we in this House have so positively debated the Segway human transporter, but I remind noble Lords of the problem that under current UK legislation the Segway human transporter cannot be used on the highway because it is not a vehicle; and it cannot be used on the pavement because it is neither a pedestrian nor an invalid carriage. The Segway human transporter is not designed and marketed as an invalid carriage; it is much more useful than that. These devices are coming, rather like King Canute's tide. I urge the Minister to take some order-making power to allow them to be used on the pavement. Primary legislation is required; he cannot do it by means of regulation.
	Segway will not sell a Segway human transporter if it believes that if it will not be used legally. If you have a big factory, or a warehouse, or a distribution centre in which to use one, it will sell you a Segway; but it will not sell you one if it believes that you are going to use it on the pavement, because it does not want to encourage illegal use. However, it is inevitable that these devices will come into the UK market via the grey market, just as happens with vehicles. We do not want to repeat the experience of citizens' band radios—CB radios. Under the previous administration everyone was using them, all the kids were using them, but they were illegal and the government had to introduce legislation to allow them to become legal. We need to legislate first in anticipation of their arrival.
	In 1835 when the Highways Act was drafted, the Segway would have been regarded as impossible. Even 15 years ago it would have been impractical and prohibitively expensive—but now it is a reality. So what is the Minister going to do about it? I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment in principle. I will not repeat what I said in Committee, but my concern is that here we are yet again discussing something that is illegal but which people are using. We have just talked about limousines an hour ago. It is putting the law into disrepute. I know that there is no easy solution to where these things should go, but they are here and they are being used. I wonder whether my noble friend would bring forward an amendment at Third Reading or accept an amendment from someone else at Third Reading that within a period of a year the Government would come forward with construction use regulations or something similar. That would let people know where they could use them legally, what they had to do to licence them—if that was the proposal—and it would allow people to ride them with the maximum safety for other road users and pedestrians and still have a bit of fun. That way they would get the benefit of what for some people is probably quite a useful method of transport.

Lord Brougham and Vaux: The Question is that Amendment No. 58A shall be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". Clear the Bar.
	Division called.
	Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order 54. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
	Amendment negatived.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said. Her Majesty's Government are encouraging children and young people to cycle through their Safer Routes to Schools initiative and their advice to local authorities. They wish more children to cycle, for understandable reasons. But with that encouragement comes a responsibility for the Government to take all reasonable measures to protect children from harm. Yesterday, I spoke with a paediatric nurse who is caring for a 13 year-old who fell from his bike, smashed the front of his head and damaged his frontal lobes. He is now unable to manage his emotions and is subject to outbreaks of rage. A friend of mine at school, who I used to cycle with, came off his bicycle. He called me to the hospital, and when I arrived, he had forgotten that he had called me. He experience concussion. His personality changed following his injury. Some years later, he developed a bipolar emotional disorder—manic depression—that may be associated with that trauma.
	The overwhelming case is that helmets protect individuals from injury to the brain and that they are particularly effective in protecting children from brain injury. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, we are all concerned that children should take more exercise. I believe that obesity in children has increased by one-fifth in the past 10 years. The evidence about whether the introduction of cycle helmets in other countries has discouraged or encouraged children and adults to cycle is not clear either way. I remember visiting a Halfords store this summer and seeing a child with his mother. She was speaking to his father on her mobile phone, asking whether they should buy the larger bike. The message from the father was that they should get the larger bike. The boy was jumping up and down with joy at the prospect of buying a new bicycle. When I look in the park and observe children, I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that bicycles are so attractive to children that it seems very unlikely that a significant number of them will be put off simply because they have to wear a helmet.
	On the question of enforcement, when the Home Office was discussing this, a two-year plan was proposed. The first year would focus heavily on education, promoting bicycle safety and the wearing of cycle helmets. The second year would involve law enforcement officers. When they saw groups of children, they would warn them that in a year's time, it would be against the law for them not to wear a cycle helmet. Then, once the law was put in place, letters would be sent to parents asking them to purchase a helmet and send a receipt to the office to prove it, or else they would receive other warnings.
	Twenty states in the United States, Norway, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as several other countries, have introduced these laws. The Government are actively encouraging children and young people to cycle more. For understandable reasons, we have a low usage of cycles in this country. We have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to protect children from harm. When parents and children are consulted about this, they favour a law to make cycle helmets mandatory.
	The Bill will provide that careless drivers who kill with no intention to do so can be sentenced to a maximum of five years' imprisonment. The Government have set aside 150 prison spaces to cater for them. Those people are harming adults and children unwittingly so, with the greatest respect to the Minister, it seems somewhat ironic that the Government are encouraging children and young people on to the streets on bicycles without taking all reasonable precautions to keep them from harm. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Of course I share the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who moved the amendment, that we want to improve the safety of our young cyclists. That is exactly what we have been doing.
	Taking the period of 1994 to 1998 as a baseline, we have reduced deaths and serious injury for child cyclists by 49 per cent. So no one should underestimate the Government's commitment to improving safety for our children. We intend to improve on that position. We are not complacent. I want to emphasise that of course this improvement in the statistics is a reflection of a whole plethora of measures that we have taken to improve child cyclists' safety. Our programme includes the education of children and their carers, the education of drivers to take more care about child cyclists, publicity, better child cycle training and improved infrastructure to increase the opportunities for them to cycle safely on our roads and cycle paths. We include in that the promotion of the wearing of helmets because we are not going to contend with noble Lords the fact that the wearing of the helmet is a help to a cyclist if he has a serious accident and lands on his head. So we are at one with noble Lords in this respect.
	We know from regular monitoring of helmet wearing that there is a long way to go to increase such wearing. Boys are most reluctant to wear helmets. Set against a generally rising trend, the wearing rate for boys has gone down from 15 per cent in 1994 to 11 per cent in 2004. For girls, the wearing rate has risen to 26 per cent. Inevitably, a large proportion of those not wearing helmets are young adolescents who have accidents. That points to the nature of the difficulty: we start from a low base. I take on board the representations made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Earl, Lord Errol, on the question of personal responsibility; I shall also comment on their points about who is liable in a moment. The problem with the amendment is that we are starting from such a low base, but it would move us up to 100 per cent by law. We cannot safely promote legislation on that basis now. We are aware of the contribution that the wearing of cycle helmets can make to road safety, but to move from a position of low acceptance of that need to 100 per cent compulsion is a significant leap that we do not think is justified.
	We have reservations on the issue of liability. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, say that he had listened to my remarks in Committee and I am grateful to him for having done that. I addressed the issue of liability. But the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right: it is not easy to identify who is liable. It is not clear who, if anyone, will be responsible for the crucial offence of causing or permitting the offence from the range of persons listed in the amendment. Suppose that a child cycles home from school. Are the parents responsible or is the school responsible? Is the school responsible as the person who has custody or possession of the bike before the child rides home? What if the school has a rule that helmets must be worn but the child does not wear one? Where does responsibility lie? We honestly think that there are real problems about ambiguity and who will be responsible. That will always be a question of fact in the circumstances. They are overlapping responsibilities. It may not be clear whether the school or the parent is responsible in such cases.
	I recognise that noble Lords will be disappointed by my response. I know that others share their views. The measure was introduced in a Private Member's Bill in the other place last year. The Government will not renege on our major commitment to improving child cycling safety, but we do not think that compulsion at this stage would produce the results that we want. We will keep a watchful and monitoring eye on the situation. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the Government will not fail in our commitment to improve child cycling safety statistics and, on that basis, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister's last remarks are very interesting, bearing in mind adherence to the law on seatbelts. To start with, very few people wore their seatbelts. To start with, it was not compulsory in the back of a car. It now is. If the Minister is fortunate enough to get an empty taxi to take him home tonight, he will find that there is a notice in the back of the taxi telling him that it is against the law not to wear his seatbelt. So the situation changes. It changes with education, I agree—in this respect, education of children on cycles—but in the past it has changed with education of adults in their motor vehicles.
	The Minister asked: who is responsible for ensuring that the child wears a helmet? In a car, the driver of the car is responsible for the passengers wearing a seatbelt, as well as himself. With children, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said that his children took their bicycles when they wanted to go out. When my children were young, there were standard instructions and rules that they had to obey, and they were in trouble if they did not. There can be a standing instruction that whenever they take their bicycles, they wear a helmet. That is not difficult. I know that children do not always obey their parents—I quite agree about that—but it is not difficult to lay down boundaries that they are not supposed to cross. Those boundaries get relaxed as the children get bigger. Later on, they are allowed out beyond nine o'clock at night, and so on. But with small children, you can lay down the rule that they must wear helmets and they are in trouble—sent to their beds, or whatever—if they disobey that rule.
	Also, schools can lay down school rules that children leaving school or riding around in school must wear a helmet or they will be punished. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that he did not support the amendment because 100 or so children might die or have a head injury every year if they did not have a helmet. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out to him that 26,000 children were injured with head injuries every year, which is a rather different figure.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said that it was good to create a culture of helmet wearing. I agree. As I said, in Australia, compulsion is creating a culture in which children are out wearing their helmets the whole time. Any new law takes time to bed down and for everyone to obey it because not everyone is aware of it. The Minister pointed out that the percentage of boys wearing a helmet has reduced recently. That is a very good reason for making it compulsory. He also said that we would be starting from a low base and that we would need to move immediately to 100 per cent wearing of helmets. The argument about helmets applies in exactly the same direction as the argument that the Government used on drivers' use of mobile phones, so that point will not wash.
	However, my noble friend Lady Hanham has put to me the argument, which she did not reiterate today, that my amendment would make children criminals. I shall look at that before Third Reading because I do not wish to make children criminals if I can help it. But it is important that we make it compulsory for children under 14 to wear protective headgear. I will reserve my right to bring the matter before your Lordships' House at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have been remiss in not arranging that meeting, although the noble Earl will recognise that there were one or two quite significant issues with the Bill which inevitably had priority and which directly concern officials in my department. He is right that the meeting that he wants involves Home Office officials. Let me assure the noble Earl that of course I will arrange such a meeting. I will let him know as soon as I have done so. We hope to achieve that possibly in the new year rather than at this stage. My priority now is to deal with the passage of this Bill, which I had hoped we might complete before Christmas. But it may be a new year's present rather than the Christmas present that we all desired.
	I understand the points that the noble Earl has made, some of which are very valid. But they are points of detail about the way in which things are done. We do not think that the amendment is necessary. After all, the police have been removing vehicles as necessary under the Act for more than 20 years and have not felt that the lack of regulations relating to their contractual arrangements affect their efficiency in any way. We do not see why we need to increase the regulatory burden without a proven and obvious need. I do not think that the noble Lord has made out his case in those terms, although he has identified certain weaknesses which we intend to address. But we do not think that we need statutory change in order to do that.
	A great deal of work is under way in the context of the Highways Agency that will lead to its traffic officers, where appropriate and authorised—the noble Lord will know that that comes into force under legislation that has been passed only recently—arranging removals on the strategic road network and adjoining roads.
	The agency will need its own contracts for this purpose, but the police will retain their powers on the network and continue to be responsible for removals on other roads, so their contractual arrangements will also continue. Obviously we want consistency between the two groups of operators, if I can define them in those terms, and to that end we see the necessity for effective collaboration. The agency, the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the insurance industry and the operators are engaged in discussion at regular meetings and, recently, at a workshop which was deemed by most as very successful.
	I recognise the concerns underlying the noble Earl's amendment, and if I thought they were not being addressed I would be less confident about asking him to withdraw it. He has identified where additional work needs to be done. I can assure him that we are doing that work and that we do not need to change the law in order to effect improvement. On that basis, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 67 and 68.
	These amendments concern the future—they are Blue Skies amendments. As we heard on my Segway amendment, "The future is nearly here!" One of the difficulties with new technology in vehicles is what to do about the legacy fleet. I am not talking about historical vehicles but the previous generation of vehicles. Amendment No. 66 provides for what I call a "Secretary of State's port", rather like computer USB port, which would allow future black boxes to be plugged in—perhaps even as a daisy chain—as new devices become available. This could include an accident data recorder, a road user charging unit and devices to limit a vehicle's speed so that the driver cannot inadvertently exceed the speed limit. I apologise for not moving my earlier amendment in regard to the adaptor speed control but my amendment about the Secretary of State's port provides a means of implementing it. We have the technology now to prevent drivers from inadvertently exceeding the speed limit. Why do we not use it?
	I fully appreciate one of the Minister's concerns about the Secretary of State's data port. It should be done at European level; it is not appropriate to do something like that at national level because the motor manufacturers will want to make all the vehicles, engine management computers and wiring systems the same throughout Europe at least, if not throughout the world. It would be no good the UK insisting on a special port. I am sure the Minister has that in his brief.
	I suggested at an earlier stage of the Bill's proceedings terminating the requirement to register number plate suppliers. In that case, the Government were trying to control number plates used to identify a vehicle. But number plates are very cheap and easy to make. Would it not be far better very strictly to control the sale and supply of a vehicle's engine management computer? It is a very expensive device, so it could justify careful controls. It is generally reliable, not easily stolen and could easily be made to emit an identifying signal to the authorities. The Dart Tag, used to travel across the Dartford river crossing, is a good example of a very small electronic device that enables the authorities—the Dartford river crossing, in this case—to register that a vehicle has passed.
	Engine management computers are very difficult to interfere with; it would be possible to introduce severe penalties for interfering with them because doing so would need special equipment and it could not be done by accident. If we use the engine management computer to identify the vehicle, we would still need the number plates, just for convenience, to avoid accidentally trying to get into someone else's vehicle.
	Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 would introduce a choice of two accident data recording devices. I suspect that the Minister will reject both. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not here to speak to his amendment. I know that he is very keen on the issue but it would have been bizarre if we had both put our names to each other's competing amendment.
	During the debate on causing death by careless driving, noble Lords identified that it is very difficult to secure a conviction. Dangerous driving is difficult to prove; it is difficult to convince a jury that dangerous driving was involved. Very often, a component of dangerous driving is harsh acceleration and deceleration. These accelerations are very easy to measure and record electronically. Harsh cornering can also be measured as a lateral acceleration. Therefore, harsh and inappropriate cornering can also be measured and recorded.
	In the event of an accident, a point of dispute is often the signal being displayed. Let us suppose that an accident occurs when someone emerges from a junction, but his defence is that the vehicle which drove into his side was displaying a turn left signal so that he believed the approaching vehicle was going to turn into the road from which he was emerging. That is difficult to prove—it is one man's word against another's. But an accident data recording device could prove that; not only could it prove what signal the driver was attempting to display, it could also show whether the lamps were shining.
	I have no intention of testing the opinion of the House. I regard this as an opportunity for the Minister to tell us his thinking about the future, what we can do with technology, particularly in respect of adaptive speed control and the accident data recorder, which is the key point in Amendments Nos. 67 and 68. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is extremely kind in her remarks about my work. It is always a delight to work with the noble Baroness. In our previous discussions we talked about grandparents. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue. Grandparents often provide the lynchpin between parents in dispute. I recognise and value very much the work that so many grandparents do, and I have been very fortunate to listen to grandparents describing that. They of course can make application to the court, and they will be listened to, about their rights to have access to their grandchildren—again always on the basis of the child's interests being paramount and in the vast majority of cases it would be in their interests to see their grandparents.
	I hope the noble Baroness will look back on some of the debates we have had. I completely agree with her that grandparents play a vital role, and we are very keen to ensure that they have the Government's support in being able to work with their grandchildren. I apologise only that I did not make that important point clearer in my final remarks.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend said. She has been a passionate advocate for grandparents throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank the Minister for her customary detailed and thoughtful reply, and I am most grateful for the way in which she has listened. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have gone to a great deal of trouble to keep us informed and for that I thank them. Although I am not supposed to, I also thank the Bill team. I am pleased that the Minister is commissioning research on contact and look forward to reading the conclusions. That will be very interesting. I do not doubt for one moment her commitment to ensuring that parents have a good, strong relationship with their children and for accepting that work needs to be done.
	In my Second Reading speech I said that the current arrangements risk the downgrading of the family and, above all, of fatherhood, and that we allow that at peril to future generations. But those are still my sentiments. Notwithstanding what the Government are doing, we still feel strongly that the best way to resolve disputes between warring parents and to protect the right of the child to a proper relationship with both parents is through presumption of co-parenting, reasonable contact, early intervention, mandatory dispute resolution and mediation and parenting time plans. However, I will not test the opinion of the House and I am sure that all this will be picked up in conversation when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.